I'm actually curious to know myself, as I'm struggling with determining which one of these I am. Because of this trouble, I'll explain what I've observed to be true. I'm apt to say that if the Ni subtypes strongly prefers their leading function over their creative function they will look remarkably similar, with maybe the IEI standing out by appearing slightly warmer(?). Essentially, the IEI would converge with traits of the ILI, becoming more detached and standoffish, while the ILI may becoming slightly more yielding, or at least less cold and detached(?) I think ILI-Te and IEI-Fe are strongly contrasted to one another and they are easier to differentiate. The former can be obsessed with factual accuracy while the latter indifferent to them.

Exactly, the distinctions are quite so clear cut as everyone makes out. As for my creative function, I turn it on and off, if and when I need it.

Originally Posted by Jimmers

I suspect both may appear to lack ambition/initiative, but this is misleading because it is not that they lack ambition, but only lack ambition in areas that others think they should have ambition towards. The ambition is toward their intellectual interests and not in the realm of their physical environment. It is in the material world where I need a little ass riding to accomplish more and not look as if I am standing around not doing anything, when really I am, it is just more mental than physical.

The thing about Ni, is that one is waiting for the right moment. There is no point in committing to action before one is sure of a decisive outcome.

In my opinion, the differences tend to be subtle so it might be a smart idea to look at the quadras and their values. In the case of IEIs and ILIs, it's a matter of valuing Te-Fi orientation or Fe-Ti orientation: both of which are about source integrity. In the case of ILIs, they will be more inclined to exhibit harsh judgement on people's character than an IEI who would tend to judge a person based on internally held laws and ideologies.

If the person talks with a monotone and is always quick to destroy the group atmosphere, then he/she is an INTp.

If the person is a conspiracy theorist who believes that Satan and Jesus are having a battle for their soul right above them, then he/she is an INFp.

Fe-PoLR is box office.
Nobody can agree on what Te-PoLR is.

Originally Posted by HandiAce

In my opinion, the differences tend to be subtle so it might be a smart idea to look at the quadras and their values. In the case of IEIs and ILIs, it's a matter of valuing Te-Fi orientation or Fe-Ti orientation: both of which are about source integrity. In the case of ILIs, they will be more inclined to exhibit harsh judgement on people's character than an IEI who would tend to judge a person based on internally held laws and ideologies.

Keep in mind that these are tendencies and not absolutes.

What would be the source of the ILI's harsh judgement of character? What is this judgement based on?

I utilize the Reinin dichotomies in this instance if it is not immediately obvious. The asking/declaring style is the easiest way. If you can get them to be candid and part of a conversation (tough) ILI's are very declarative, speak more dryly, and give an impression of seriousness. As stated above they also avoid groups in general. IEI's are much more soft in speech and although they can make firm points I never get the impression that they won't consider your point of view kindly. IEI's in my experience (even Ni subs) tend to lend an aura of caring outwards. I always get the impression they want to be part of something, while with ILI's I usually get the impression they want to be part of almost nothing.

I will say that on initial contact they can be harder to differentiate due to the fact that both are relatively kind, reasonable, and distant in first exchange. Any prolonged communication will quickly reveal their natures.

No, I'm saying that this in particular is what Te-PolR looks like. There have been some equally insane INTps, like Ted Kaczynski for example. If you read Kaczynski's manifesto, though, he never talks about things that didn't happen. He has predictions (Ni), he hates the "liberal mindset" (a Fi category with a little -Se spice), but he never talks about things that haven't happened. Gorilla199, on the other hand, uses internal, deductive logic (Ti) to bolster his subjective visions.

"Where would it be more appropriate, in their logic, to kill Jesus, than on top of a pyramid, underneath a flying saucer, with a horned disc on his head?"

There's an internal logic, but the question "Where is the empirical evidence?" isn't a concern.

I think Jim Jones was ENFj, and Bill 'O Reilly is probably ESTj. Not all "religious nuts" are Te-Polrs.

No, I'm saying that this in particular is what Te-PolR looks like. There have been some equally insane INTps, like Ted Kaczynski for example. If you read Kaczynski's manifesto, though, he never talks about things that didn't happen. He has predictions (Ni), he hates the "liberal mindset" (a Fi category with a little -Se spice), but he never talks about things that haven't happened. Gorilla199, on the other hand, uses internal, deductive logic (Ti) to bolster his subjective visions.

"Where would it be more appropriate, in their logic, to kill Jesus, than on top of a pyramid, underneath a flying saucer, with a horned disc on his head?"

There's an internal logic, but the question "Where is the empirical evidence?" isn't a concern.

I think Jim Jones was ENFj, and Bill 'O Reilly is probably ESTj. Not all "religious nuts" are Te-Polrs.

I consider myself IEI, but I'm looking for empirical evidence. Te-PoLR for me is just being overwhelmed by masses of information, and failing to organise my work effectively. If I ignore empirical evidence, there will be good reason.

"They may seem oblivious to objective reality, lost in their "dreams."

Objective reality = empirical reality. This isn't just something I pulled out of my ass.

I know. But the word "seem" is based on appearances. I can be lost in my head, but all intuitives can be. If a piece of empirical evidence or a fact comes my way I will consider it. Otherwise, it's like saying IEIs have zero common sense.

"They may seem oblivious to objective reality, lost in their "dreams."

Objective reality = empirical reality. This isn't just something I pulled out of my ass.

The word "oblivious" is the key to unlock the meaning of this sentence. "Oblivious" implies more so than anything else, the on rush of information, like bills due, stacks of books on the floor, unmade beds, filling out forms correctly ...

Oblivious does not imply primarily the act ignoring an abstract pluralities of real events outside of the field of the direct potential actions that can be taken by the IEI. An IEI, for example, could be a very good history professor who understands his subject's facts with absolute mastery. He however, cannot take action on his bills and his office is a mess. (Te is logic of actions...)

The word "oblivious" is the key to unlock the meaning of this sentence. "Oblivious" implies more so than anything else, the on rush of information, like bills due, stacks of books on the floor, unmade beds, filling out forms correctly ...

Oblivious does not imply primarily the act ignoring an abstract pluralities of real events outside of the field of the direct potential actions that can be taken by the IEI. An IEI, for example, could be a very good history professor who understands his subject's facts with absolute mastery. He however, cannot take action on his bills and his office is a mess. (Te is logic of actions...)

Gorilla199 is not an IEI, he is a schizophrenic.

You've hit the proverbial nail on the head. I am oblivious to such things, that's why I need a routine. I rely more and more on my mobilising Ti to get my out of trouble. As long as I have a routine that encompasses everything I need to do in any given day, I stay on top of things.

ESTps have similar conspiratorial, Ni + Ti internal worlds. Just look at L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology, or Dubya's imaginary WMDs. Granted these are extreme cases, but I'm using them to illustrate a point.

Beta types "focus on 'vision'" (from Wikisocion's page on Beta quadra). "Vision" is soothsaying, it is mystical. It can also be a little bugging nuts on occasion.

Maybe. But as a positivist I am more likely to accept ALL evidence put in front of my nose without scrutinising it to any great degree. I'm very intellectually trusting.

Accepting "all evidences" is as senseless as accepting none of them. How will you separate what really is an evidence, and what only seems to you to be? In this case you could justify almost every postulate.

By the way, I doubt being a positivist has such implications, but that's another issue.

I know. But the word "seem" is based on appearances. I can be lost in my head, but all intuitives can be. If a piece of empirical evidence or a fact comes my way I will consider it. Otherwise, it's like saying IEIs have zero common sense.

Sometimes, in a group of people, I will lose interest and stare off into inner space but I'm not missing a damn thing that is going on around me. I will surprise everyone by offering some useful input on whatever the subject is and they will look at me with mouths open. I am aware of my subjective and object simultaneously. It has been said that "nothing gets past me". It doesn't change my type though. Common sense is a strength of mine but I don't always choose to use but I am fully aware of my choice to ignore it, when I do.

Accepting "all" evidence is as senseless as accepting none of them. How will you separate what really is an evidence, and what only seems to you to be? In this case you could justify almost every postulate.

By the way, I doubt being a positivist has such implications, but that's another issue.

It's not exactly accepting, just storing to be evaluated at a later time. It's a faster process, but it has problems.

Originally Posted by Whoobie77

Someone who "needs" or desires "a routine" does not sound like the dual of an ESTp.

It's not exactly accepting, just storing to be evaluated at a later time. It's a faster process, but it has problems.

That does not sound to me like something an IEI would say/do. That sounds like collecting factual data, much closer to Te. Although I have not observed you long enough for making a conclusion about your type so... whatever.

Sometimes, in a group of people, I will lose interest and stare off into inner space but I'm not missing a damn thing that is going on around me. I will surprise everyone by offering some useful input on whatever the subject is and they will look at me with mouths open. I am aware of my subjective and object simultaneously. It has been said that "nothing gets past me". It doesn't change my type though. Common sense is a strength of mine but I don't always choose to use but I am fully aware of my choice to ignore it, when I do.

That's it! Everything just washes over us and we're able to get to the heart of things without any effort. But if you want us to do something practical, forget about it!
The whole Te-PoLR and common sense thing is barking up the wrong tree. Me and my IEI mum have more common sense than my LII dad.

That does not sound to me like something an IEI would say/do. That sounds like collecting factual data, much closer to Te. Although I have not observed you long enough for making a conclusion about your type so... whatever.

But isn't it the case that everyone collects factual data? It's the process of learning, not in any way governed by socionics.

But isn't it the case that everyone collects factual data? It's the process of learning, not in any way governed by socionics.

Yes and no. Some ppl are very prone to make quick conclusions, almost as soon as they have data.

But "storing facts" without making a conclusion in that moment, for thinking and rethinking in the issue (specially when they've more data) is closer to Te [Fi] than Ti [Fe]. Ti is static; once the concept is formed it's much more difficult to change it. In certain way, Ti shapes reality to concepts (interprets reality according to them), whereas Te shapes concepts to reality.

Don't take this as a white/black thing, I'm talking about pure limit cases, of course.

ILI is a lot more conservative in a group setting. Will not readily get excited about something, will wait and see how things play out, who supports the idea and who is against it. They look for opportune moments to make fun of someone; it has to be at the right time so that everyone agrees with ILI and there is little chance of ILI getting burned back right away. At the same time, they can take jokes directed at them with good humor, as long as its a democratic environment where everyone has a chance to make a good burn on each other.

IEI is is unpredictable in a group setting, can be very subdued or very lively. When being lively, they make jokes indiscriminately, the purpose being to keep the atmosphere upbeat, and not at all to burn anyone. If some unrefined being in the group were to miss the delicacy of what the IEI is doing, and were to be so uncouth as to burn the IEI, then IEI will NOT take that well, will probably leave.

I see no discrepancy between an IEI with a super-ego composed of Te and the descriptions put forth by some members in this thread. Needing and desiring a routine are the hallmarks of Te polr. The SLE's Se outward movement, an attitude of "just make it happen" is a huge relief for her/his IEI dual, who can get over focused by their super-egos push for personal structure, which is in actuality a coping mechanism for being often absent-minded and overwhelmed by details or actions needed.

"just do it" is the perfect motto for IEI's. And if this isn't present in their lives, then perhaps a routine helps them stay motivated and/or responsible.

Last edited by wacey; 06-16-2014 at 10:26 PM.

"If this to end in fire, then we should all burn together. Watch the flames climb higher into the night."

ILI is a lot more conservative in a group setting. Will not readily get excited about something, will wait and see how things play out, who supports the idea and who is against it. They look for opportune moments to make fun of someone; it has to be at the right time so that everyone agrees with ILI and there is little chance of ILI getting burned back right away. At the same time, they can take jokes directed at them with good humor, as long as its a democratic environment where everyone has a chance to make a good burn on each other.

IEI is is unpredictable in a group setting, can be very subdued or very lively. When being lively, they make jokes indiscriminately, the purpose being to keep the atmosphere upbeat, and not at all to burn anyone. If some unrefined being in the group were to miss the delicacy of what the IEI is doing, and were to be so uncouth as to burn the IEI, then IEI will NOT take that well, will probably leave.

Most constructive post in this thread. As far as IEI leaving... we don't even have to move one physical foot to "leave". I will shut someone down in an instant. Then everyone thinks they were being a jerk to me even though I might not even think they were being a total jerk. I might think them foolish and refuse to deal with them. Then I will find myself surrounded by several people (usually caregiver types) asking if I am ok and giving other person the cold shoulder. I am ok. Or an aggressor will ask me if I want them to knock the person out, or something similar, which makes me laugh. I usually won't hold a grudge against the offender and when I include them in the group again most people will follow my lead. Although I can't say that others did not start holding a grudge against offender.

Yes and no. Some ppl are very prone to make quick conclusions, almost as soon as they have data.

But "storing facts" without making a conclusion in that moment, for thinking and rethinking in the issue (specially when they've more data) is closer to Te [Fi] than Ti [Fe]. Ti is static; once the concept is formed it's much more difficult to change it. In certain way, Ti shapes reality to concepts (interprets reality according to them), whereas Te shapes concepts to reality.

Don't take this as a white/black thing, I'm talking about pure limit cases, of course.

Interesting. Do you think this could also be a case of the difference between static and dynamic types?

ILI is a lot more conservative in a group setting. Will not readily get excited about something, will wait and see how things play out, who supports the idea and who is against it. They look for opportune moments to make fun of someone; it has to be at the right time so that everyone agrees with ILI and there is little chance of ILI getting burned back right away. At the same time, they can take jokes directed at them with good humor, as long as its a democratic environment where everyone has a chance to make a good burn on each other.

I would say it's more making fun of what people do than the actual person, because Fi. Otherwise I agree.

That doesn't make it less harsh, but it's a difference in beta/gamma perspective imo.